It has since been sent to all local MPs with a
request that they follow up and give due consideration. It
was also sent to many community groups and many have sent
their own letter endorsing the contents of the CanCERN
newsletter.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss
the merits of the suggestion in this letter and the
expectations that we have of resolution.

The
Letter:

Hon. Gerry BrownleeMinister of
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery

22 May 2013

Dear
Minister Brownlee

Firstly we would like to thank you for
conducting the Campbell Live interview on Monday 20 May
regarding the resident’s plight with the Earthquake
Commission. Acknowledging their voice is the first step
towards resolving issues.

You mentioned in your interview
that you had heard the issues but not the solutions. We
found this statement disappointing because CanCERN has on
numerous occasions tried to engage you in solution focused
discussions regarding EQC. We would once again invite that
opportunity and have reiterated the areas which have
consistently been of most concern and the solutions that
have come directly from the residents most impacted by
EQC’s delivery of service.

Prioritising the
vulnerable - the issueMany elderly, sick and
vulnerable people are still waiting to be identified and
prioritised. EQC has recently developed a process to
prioritise the vulnerable but it relies largely on community
groups discovering and referring those they find in the
community. EQC does action these referrals but it leaves too
many gaps - the most vulnerable are the hardest to find and
we are slowly uncovering 95 year olds and 101 year olds who
have waited for over two years for EQC to make contact.
While utilising the knowledge of the community can be seen
as a positive move, people will be missed and EQCs
preoccupation with capacity has overruled the priority to
find every possible vulnerable person. EQC's needs have been
put over and above the needs of the vulnerable. This is
unacceptable and shows a lack of commitment to actually
wanting to identify the most vulnerable.

The
solutionEQC management were given advice via
the EQC Customer Advocacy Group to promote the programme
widely via the media and to use the MSD database which they
have access to to proactively and directly contact all
people to offer them information about the programme. EQC
refused to take this advice saying capacity was an issue and
they were cautious of opening it up and being taken
advantage of.

Case Management - the
issueAccess to personal information and
accurate and timely communication has been the plague of an
overwhelming number of residents. Ian Simpson, Bruce Emson
and other senior managers have publicly stated that they
need to do better and yet from a resident’s perspective,
little has improved in this area.

Residents with the most
complex situations can not get clarity on their position.
This is extremely distressing as was witnessed on the
Campbell Live programme and the added stress of having to
repeat your story every time you manage to make contact with
EQC is unacceptable and breaking the spirit of strong
Cantabrians.

The solutionBased on
EQC’s claims that a large number of claims have now been
resolved, case management of those in the most complex
repairs is now a valid option and priority should be given
to meeting the communication needs of these people. Case
management could be managed on a pod style basis organised
into areas of complexity - cross lease, Port Hills, TC3
foundation repairs, TC3 others, most vulnerable land damage
homes (increased risk of flood, increased risk of
liquefaction), rockcote properties (who have been classified
as leaky homes). If EQC does not have the systems in place
to flag people into these categories, they have once again
failed to implement a system to identify the most vulnerable
and worst affected and it would highlight the need for
questions to be asked regarding how they have estimated all
claims will be resolved within certain
timeframes.

Discrepancies in assessments - EQC and
the private insurer - the issueDiscrepancies in
assessment costs between insurers and EQC are not the result
of apportionment as you stated in the Campbell Live
interview. They are largely the result of inadequate
assessments, EQC’s interpretation of the Act, repair
methodologies which breach or subvert the Building Act and
subversion of the Building Consents process.

Presently the
monitoring, auditing and quality control processes of both
EQC and Fletcher EQR are internal processes (other than
Treasury and Auditor General reviews which focus more on
financial accountability processes). Residents have little
faith in the validity of these processes. Contractors and
professionals have indicated they also have concerns which
have been raised to no avail.

The
solutionAdequate external monitoring and
auditing processes need to be established immediately. Scale
is a given. Speed is important. These things can not be at
the expense of quality and resident assurance that their
home is still a valuable asset. Only independent monitoring
and auditing of the assessment and repair processes will
give this assurance.

Management of EQC - the
issueIan Simpson by his own admission has
failed to address the longstanding issues which plague the
community. The huge number of email responses to the
Campbell Live interview which outline negative experiences
are a vote of no confidence for the management of
EQC.

Time and time again we have been told by managers
at EQC that communicating with the people is a priority and
that they were looking at ways to improve this. This began
with Reid Stiven early in 2011, was reiterated by Bruce
Emson on many occasions in 2012 ( as far as we are aware one
of his roles in EQC was to develop a better communications
process) and repeated again by Ian Simpson when we met him
in the later half of 2012 and was further echoed by the
board chair Michael Wintringham when we visited him in
Wellington in December of last year. From the residents
perspective the actions of EQC to fulfill this role are
actions that meet the needs of EQC and do not meet the needs
of the people. We have yet to have the ‘how’
articulated.

CanCERN met with EQC Board Chair, Michael
Wintringham late 2012 and were told to wait and see what
positive measures would be put in place to address our
stated concerns. As of yet, we can identify no real
improvements and believe the EQC Board has also failed to
acknowledge and address the massive systemic failings of
EQC. Letter to Michael Wintringham -
11.10.12

The solutionMany have
suggested how things could be resolved to no avail. Two and
a half years is too long for residents to wait for this
service to improve. There has been no articulated plan to
address the greatest concerns that is acceptable to the
residents. Therefore we reassert our formal request that Ian
Simpson is not best qualified to be the Chief Executive of
EQC and should be replaced immediately.

In the spirit of
solution focused outcomes, we would once again offer the
opportunity to speak with you directly about these issues
with the purpose of resolving the issues in a mutually
beneficial way.

Yours sincerely

Leanne Curtis
CanCERN Relationships Manager on behalf of the
CanCERN Board and
network

ALSO:

WorkSafe NZ has laid one charge against the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in relation to the shooting at the MSD Ashburton office on 1 September 2014 in which two Work and Income staff were killed and another was injured. More>>

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters has announced his intention to stand in the Northland by-election, citing his own links to the electorate and ongoing neglect of the region by central government. More>>

The Government has appointed 12 New Zealanders as members of the Flag Consideration Panel which will engage with the public about a possible new New Zealand flag, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English says. More>>

ALSO:

ALSO:

The first I knew of my mother’s charges was when I was called by a reporter yesterday. I spoke to Andrew and we agreed there is a conflict of interest at the present time which means I will temporarily stand aside from the Social Development portfolio. It’s the right thing to do… . More>>